Connecticut Massacre

[EditorOne]

I agree with IA that there are a great many people who would simply never pull the trigger. That's been the case forever; modern military training acknowledges this and does all it can to overcome it by depersonalizing "the enemy." (The military, however, does nothing to retrain folks when they resume civilian life. There's a recipe for trouble right there.)

Lot, not jumping on you as hard as you think. At this point there's no such thing as an idea not worth considering. I just see more bad than good in having lethal weapons in a school, and that goes for the police officers so many schools now have assigned to them. I see them walking through crowded hallways with Glocks on their hips where any student stands a pretty good chance of a successful grab. It's like putting an arsenal within reach of anyone who goes crazy.
​

 

[Jennywocky]

Perhaps something along parallel lines for gun carriers? Get even the RNA to do this. Maybe it would trickle down to troubled young men that using arms that way is a shameful thing to do ... don't know. Let's ask the NRA what to do???

Oh, that's endearing. What do you think the NRA would actually do? It's probably not a far cry from putting Westboro Baptist in charge of outreach to gay people.

probably more likely to get an organization like MADD off the ground and handle it like a grass roots project. Heck, we've effectively locked down smoking in this country, so it's not a hopeless cause; the smoking companies had a great lobby too, didn't they?

I'll also have to say, I think arming teachers is a lousy idea. Teaching is hard enough without having to also be concerned about protecting one's firearms so students cannot get a hold of it; and many teachers are teachers because they are positive people, wanting to shape and nurture students, not people who naturally fire guns to kill intruders. It's a very different mentality; and even if the teacher manages to shoot and wound/kill intruders, it's going to mess them up afterwards, they simply are not killers by nature. It also breaks down trust between teacher/student, it's kind of hard to want to speak your mind in discussions when you think your teacher is kind of bugnuts and is carrying high-speed rounds. If any weapons are to be placed in a school (which is still debatable), it's better to have them controlled by skilled professionals with a mentality for it and duties that don't run counter to their role as an aggressive defender.

I don't know if EditorOne's idea about tracking things back and acting in preventative ways can be accomplished, but I do think that kind of approach would idealistically be better. If we can tease out any major root contributors to this kind of violence and lock them down as much as possible, that's definitely a positive step. We would likely still have to have plans in place to lock down any remaining inevitable violence, though.

 

[NoID10ts]

I see them walking through crowded hallways with Glocks on their hips where any student stands a pretty good chance of a successful grab. It's like putting an arsenal within reach of anyone who goes crazy.
​

It's funny you say this. I work with our officer quite a bit. Sometimes I catch myself wondering if I could snatch his gun from him, especially when his back is turned. I've even caught myself studying the little latch on his holster and trying to see where the safety is. He walks our crowded halls during class changes and I can't be the only one who does that. If someone wanted that gun bad enough, they could get it. No question about it, especially if they had help.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Being from Connecticut, I am getting sick of hearing about this. Not to diminish what happened, it was a horrible tragedy. I just wish that there was something else on prime time TV. Like those singing shows I used to watch... or The Office.

 

[NoID10ts]

Turn off the TV. Get out there and, I don't know, shoot someone.

 

[BigApplePi]

Oh, that's endearing. What do you think the NRA would actually do? It's probably not a far cry from putting in charge of outreach to gay people.
Westboro Baptist
probably more likely to get an organization like MADD off the ground and handle it like a grass roots project. Heck, we've effectively locked down smoking in this country, so it's not a hopeless cause; the smoking companies had a great lobby too, didn't they?

That NRA idea was intuition. I will explain where that came from. To get a movement going a spark is needed in a field of emotional density. There are plenty of drunk drivers. There are or were plenty of public smokers. A MADD spark would be more likely to catch than a sparse density of parents aggrieved by shootings. The only time to start a movement would be NOW while everyone is emotionally moved. Ater a month or so, won't this die down?

The NRA has the density. If the public could move on the NRA*, the NRA itself could firm up its act. If it would advertise the responsible use of guns and tell stories of parents who failed to lock up their guns ... offspring who shot themselves ... I dunno ... just an idea.
___________________________________

Westboro Baptists? Think Trojan Horse. I met a fierce anti-gay guy (XSXJ) on the internet. I had to reassure him I wasn't gay by hetero stories. After he semi-trusted me we become quasi-friends. I was able to at least calm him down that it was okay to think well of gays. Slip a Trojan Horse into the NRA.
_________________________________

*A few hours after this post: The news on CBS said the NRA would be making a statement on Friday.

 

[Duxwing]

I can still see no reason for any civilian to own, leave alone carry on their person, a handgun. I understand shotguns for hunting, even perhaps non auto rifles for target practice if you're into that sort of thing, but not handguns. And most definitely not military assault weaponry.

The whole self defence handgun thing is basically just a vote of no confidence in your laws and police, and implies that you wish to take vigilante action in response to threats. Make no mistake, that's what it is - taking the law into your own hands and appointing yourself judge, jury and executioner. At what point does it become ok to bypass the judicial system when sentencing someone to death?

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. So sad, and yet so true. The boys (and girls!) in blue have our best interests in mind and will fight to keep us safe, but they need time to arrive in time-- excepting ever-presence-- in order to protect us from muggers and the like. Hence, carrying a handgun isn't necessarily a vote of no confidence, but a way to handle the practical limitations of law enforcement in areas where crime is likely.

And when the barrel of a gun or the point of a knife comes a citizen's way, then the use of lethal force is not only just, but a necessary option for the mentally healthy. Otherwise, he or she (or it) is faced with another unfortunate situation: "When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns," wherein self-defense would have been possible, just, and effective had a firearm only been available.

Moreover, guns often act as a deterrent when simply revealed. Muggers think twice when their seemingly defenseless target unzips their coat to reveal a full holster. Such acts rarely find their way into the news because neither robber nor would-be victim is inclined--due to fear or a desire to keep the thought of "Are they armed? Better not risk it" in would-be robbers' minds-- to make their identity known.

In summation, firearms provide excellent protection in addition to good law enforcement agencies by offering their wielders, mentally healthy and non-felon citizens-- immediate access to deterrence and lethal force should a dangerous situation arise. Although their is the possibility of misuse, the number of lives, limbs, and lawsuits saved by the very real and significantly likely risk of death being present in such all-too-common crimes as burglary, robbery, and rape likely outweighs the casualties caused by the unfortunate but statistically unlikely event of school shootings.

-Duxwing

 

[Melkor]

The immensely judgmental and cruel media retort to such tragedies often depresses me more than the events themselves.

*sigh*

Will I ever live to see the tabloid headline:

SOCIETY DID IT

?

I can live in hope.

 

[EditorOne]

"Moreover, guns often act as a deterrent when simply revealed." Or even when simply alluded to. I convinced a younger, stronger would-be assailant that he wasn't going to hit me or my dogs. In his mind the only reason for such obvious confidence on my part would be a concealed carry permit. His own imagination backed him down.

Totally agree some kind of defensive shield is needed between the call for help and the arrival of help. I'm thinking taser might be a better alternative. Kind of the nerd's specially designed weapon - call it "The Nullificator."

 

[redbaron]

 

[snafupants]

@redbaron

The red menace lives on!

 

[IdeasNotTheProblem]

"Moreover, guns often act as a deterrent when simply revealed." Or even when simply alluded to. I convinced a younger, stronger would-be assailant that he wasn't going to hit me or my dogs. In his mind the only reason for such obvious confidence on my part would be a concealed carry permit. His own imagination backed him down.

Totally agree some kind of defensive shield is needed between the call for help and the arrival of help. I'm thinking taser might be a better alternative. Kind of the nerd's specially designed weapon - call it "The Nullificator."

I have seen a couple local news reports here where a would be car-jacker got chased off because the driver had a gun handy. Many of these people have concealed carry permits though, applied for and given by the state. I don't know what's best or not. I do get a kick out of these kinds of stories. I'd like to think other would-be criminals are deterred by this, but suspect that they probably end up targeting more defenseless people.


I also think that a simple change in gun control policy will cause people to feel safer and policy makers to feel like they've made a meaningful contribution. Whether or not this policy makes an actual difference in safety is secondary to people's desire to reaffirm their sense of security. They're not going to ban guns, but if enough people are frightened, upset and calling for action on a controversial issue, then govt is going to do just enough to allow them all to sleep at night.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I have had guns pulled on me a few times and mugged...in Australia. Interesting thing about gun control laws and restrictions, criminals don't tend to follow the law.

If you wish gun related crime to be reduced in the US, end the bloody war on drugs.

 

[BigApplePi]

Quote of the month ...

... criminals don't tend to follow the law.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Quote of the month ...

Don't you just love redundant statements? I know I do! XD

Hey! Someone gotta say it.

(My statement not yours.)

---

I would like to know more about the perpetrator's background.

 

[EditorOne]

Ending the war on drug would help, for sure. A hidden obstacle: Privatization of prisons led to a new lobby for stricter laws so they get more business. We even had judges here in Pennsylvania taking payoffs from a juvenile detention facility to railroad and sentence youngsters to imprisonment . It really just doesn't get any more sickening than that.

 

[snafupants]

Ending the war on drug would help, for sure. A hidden obstacle: Privatization of prisons led to a new lobby for stricter laws so they get more business. We even had judges here in Pennsylvania taking payoffs from a juvenile detention facility to railroad and sentence youngsters to imprisonment . It really just doesn't get any more sickening than that.

True but it can reasonably be inferred from the bloated prison industrial complex.

It's like seeing a fat person and just knowing they consume the wrong foods. The Twinkie wrappers are redundant - the dude's obesity speaks volumes and tells you the essentials.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Ending the "war" on drugs here would certainly ease a lot of a certain type of gun violence. Howeve there's been mixed reports lately suggesting Lanza was prescribed a drug called fanapt which has alleged side effects including suicide and agreeisive behavior. Although that's become increasingly unclear as the source of that information is being questioned (a possible imposter).

We've jumped full bore into the psychotropic drug business without first better understanding how the mind works. Can't say it's the smartest thing to do.

 

[snafupants]

We've jumped full bore into the psychotropic drug business without first better understanding how the mind works. Can't say it's the smartest thing to do.

Nope. Any plant that can be reverse engineered and patented is quickly slapped with a label. Although, I heard a given drug in the US takes an average of 18 years to leave the research lab and enter the pharmacy, considering FDA approval and other happy horseshit. I'm for using drugs that have an affinity for current receptors, either as agonists or antagonists, provided I feel like crap for some reason. The synthetic stuff people throw at their bodies typically isn't kosher. /thread derail

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Interesting presentation on gun control:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg

 

[crippli]

Interesting presentation on gun control:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg

Interesting video. It's nice to see the numbers on that. But it doesn't answer why the population(or maybe the population don't want, it's just the media that make it appear so?) want to increase gun control on citizens.


The one parent situation was an interesting aspect, are they stigmatized in the US, less benefits?

 

[snafupants]

Just as a perfunctory placating gesture, the easiest and least controversial thing to do is limit rounds or shots per minute in select assault weapon's magazines and require more stringent rules apropos gun shows. Eight hundred rounds per minute on the automatic AR-15 seems excessive for anything but killing; also, the current laxity of gun shows could reasonable, and constitutionally, be altered.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I found this presentation interesting as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uwAo8lcAC4

 

[Oblivious]

I found this presentation interesting as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uwAo8lcAC4

I was just about to post this. Thank you.

 

[crippli]

The two videos tell me that gun control will increase violence. Video control will have no effect. They will have a difficult decision ahead of them then if they go after one or both of these two options.

 

[BigApplePi]

I was just about to post this. Thank you.

The public loves drama. The good thing is it keeps them calm; the bad thing is deviants get riled up.

In the World Trades Center, 3,000 died and that precipitated an enormous expense to the economy. Does the economy want to spend its wealth this way when it could work on poverty, auto deaths and disease which kill a lot more? Answer: see the 1st paragraph above.

Maybe some substitute for this kind of drama? -Violent- dramatic sporting events? Spelling bees? Hopscotch contests?

 

[Wolf18]

There are 2 sides to this: 1 side says that if gun control increased, this would be less likely to happen in the first place. the 2nd side says that if everyone had guns, one of the teachers could've shot the gunman. My issue with this: increased gun control will still allow people to get guns who shouldn't get guns - it won't make a difference. Decreased gun control will just give more angry people more big guns, which can't be good.

We shouldn't be debating gun control, we should be discussing ways to make schools safer so that gunmen can't get in. For example, my school is increasing security so you can't get in without either buzzing in or scanning your fingerprint. If you make it harder for gunmen to get access to the places where they will carry out shootings, they will be less likely to do it in places like that. I think that as long as they have the means to kill people, they won't make a big deal about where they're doing it. I think they'd be as happy to shoot someone in the desert as to shoot up a school. Adam Lanza was an exception; he had a personal problem with the school (connection). Gun control is the only way to stop people like him, but I get the impression that his kind is rare - look at all the other shootings: Did the movie theater killer really care where he was shooting? Probably not.

In conclusion, I think that we shouldn't be focusing on the guns, but on the possible settings of the shootings and increasing their security.

SW

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

For those of you who've never watched this (or it's been a while), let's take a trip back to Old School:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAouWXzi-1Q

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I laugh at the notion that guns stop any more violence than they create.

 

[snafupants]

I laugh at the notion that guns stop any more violence than they create.

The second amendment's not about curbing violence but I agree.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I don't think I exactly understand your scenario in the first column there. Sorry. But sort of.

To just clearly state my position: I think drugs should be legal, and weapons illegal. That is, during this stage in history. How can there be law without government? Consent-based systems at multiple levels of organization. But since we're here, let's make the best of it. Furthermore, when we rise up against our governments (and capitalists), we should do that using non-violent (but really aggressive) means. The key is to make their policemen desert. General strikes, occupations of public space, spreading of information, that sort of stuff. But that is offtopic. But to continue on that tangent, I don't take stock in anything close to a fast revolution. The transition will be slow and painful.

I also agree with your general position (ban auto & semi-auto), but it's too long-term for the U.S. We need baby steps and at least 1-2 generational transitions. In the mean time the presence of guns is inextricably linked to anything and everything else that is illegal or banned.

The main difference between drugs and guns are that guns are naturally destructive. No. Both are naturally neutral and come with various positives and negatives depending how they're used. Their purpose comes directly from damaging stuff. What of the mere threat to be able to damage stuff? "Walk softly, and carry a big stick." It's basically how the U.S. has held the world together (admittedly to its own advantage) since WWII. Adverse effects are less destructive than their main purpose. A high quality gun is worse than a low quality gun. A high quality narcotic is better than a low quality narcotic, and therein lies the main difference between the two in prohibation-politics, which is to say that banning guns would do exactly what they wanted banning drugs to do. Therefore, legalize the drugs and put prohibiting efforts towards the guns. I really don't think it's a coincidence that it's the other way around today. Nope. There is a freedom to owning and using guns, and like any other piece of technology, there are adequate consequences for its misuse provided by the legal system.

Of course there are loads of guns and loads of ammunition. If you really are an anarcho-communist, you should be familiar with marxist economics, stating that more labour put into production equals a higher value (~ price) per unit of produced goods, and that putting efforts to work against the production of it would grant a higher price and a lower availability for it, since that would prolongue the chain of production. You're neglecting the subjective nature of value that is today's reality. When those 200 years have passed, guns would be much rarer. Point being that less quantity/quality in production leads to less guns in the future. By then they'll have invented something else. Good 'ol telekinetic death rays or something. They would be more expensive to use and would therefore be used less. And really, how many of the guns produced today will make it for 200 years? Many. At least half given how manufacturing has changed since the turn of the 20th century.

.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Anders behring breivik was the guy who killed 77 people in norway.

Its the same with Eric harris and Dylan klebold who did the shootings at columbine.

Fame? No. Small town culture led to the motivation for Harris and Klebold. This is discussed in Bowling for Columbine. Littleton's (the same town featured in South Park) culture was such that one's academic success as early as 6th grade effectively determined one's economic and social fate, in that the pressures to perform at the level required to leave small town life were exacerbated annually.

Breivek was psychotic. I doubt he did what he did in order to receive fan mail while in jail.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Ending the war on drug would help, for sure. A hidden obstacle: Privatization of prisons led to a new lobby for stricter laws so they get more business. We even had judges here in Pennsylvania taking payoffs from a juvenile detention facility to railroad and sentence youngsters to imprisonment . It really just doesn't get any more sickening than that.

PA's budget situation will hopefully dictate a reduction in the prison industrial complex. I believe costs are projected to grow some 80% in the next 5-6 years.

Meanwhile, LET'S SLASH THE PENSIONS OF TEACHERS!!! YEA MURIKA!!!

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

PA's budget situation will hopefully dictate a reduction in the prison industrial complex. I believe costs are projected to grow some 80% in the next 5-6 years.

Meanwhile, LET'S SLASH THE PENSIONS OF TEACHERS!!! YEA MURIKA!!!

Uh,,,,that's exactly what they are going to do in order to pay for the prison system. They will pay for that if they have to cut schools down to classrooms conducted under shade trees.

I've read at differing times over the last several years about this and that politician owning stock in these prison companies. Couldn't find a list or anything but there's been quite a few. Romney was/is one.

 

[joal0503]

Uh,,,,that's exactly what they are going to do in order to pay for the prison system. They will pay for that if they have to cut schools down to classrooms conducted under shade trees.

I've read at differing times over the last several years about this and that politician owning stock in these prison companies. Couldn't find a list or anything but there's been quite a few. Romney was/is one.

im pretty sure the majority of prison systems in the US are privately owned, funded, etc.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/Externa...9NDE5MTEwfENoaWxkSUQ9NDMyMjg1fFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1

Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) : “The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by . . . leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices . . . .”

 

[Lostwitheal]

Interesting presentation on gun control:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg

I haven't looked into many of the statistics he's spouting here, but at least some of them would appear to be questionable, at best:

http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pdf

Also his comparison of states with stricter gun control vs. states with more lax gun control is disingenuous to my mind - we're talking about national implementation here. An idiot could work out that if you have one place with strict gun control and another place with lax gun control next to each other, with no borders in between, then people will take the less-risky option.

 

[spinner]

Yeah, they kind of played their ace in the hole there before the final bet.

This is officially a weaponry regulation thread then?


I feel I've made enough of a case here to demonstrate that the problem is neither with weapons access nor the shooters themselves: http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=14813

In any case, let it be said that the only ones who would be restricted by weapons regulations, even total and outright banning and seizure, are the stupid. And especially in the context of such proposed policy, the willfully stupid.

 

[spinner]

Theyre always outsiders with anger rising to a boiling point. Always.

 

[snafupants]

Theyre always outsiders with anger rising to a boiling point. Always.

Are you trying to tell us something Spinner?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

@Proletar

http://news.yahoo.com/detroit-reports-highest-homicide-rate-in-20-years-192557311.html

Notable points/quotes (highlighting added):

"Violent crime in Detroit shadows the landscape like its rows of abandoned buildings, but now the city faces a new precedent, even as gun-related killings decline nationwide: More people were killed here last year than at any time in the past 20 years."


" city officials reported 386 criminal homicides in 2012, the highest since 1992."


"At least two-thirds of the homicides in Detroit are related to drug sales, disputes between people selling drugs or disputes between people owing people money about drugs"


"The city has a high proportion of young men aged 20-29, he said. That age group accounted for 131 homicide victims and has demographic connections to the drug trade. The number of young men in the city who struggle with dysfunctional families and the high number of vacant homes in Detroit make matters worse."

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

And chalk up one more for Aurora, Colorado:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/05/justice/colorado-aurora-standoff/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

[Solitaire U.]

We shouldn't be debating gun control, we should be discussing ways to make schools safer so that gunmen can't get in.

So he goes next door to the supermarket and starts blasting away there. Or, if his heart is set on targeting children, simply waits until school ends and picks them off with a sniper rifle when they're outside the building.

From gun control to impenetrable fortress schools; that's like trying to stop a massive blood hemorrhage with a band aid...

Yet nobody wants to explore the root causes. Why does random mass murder occur so frequently in the US? What is the cultural construct that sets the US apart from the rest of the world in this regard? Too many guns? Not enough fingerprint scanners? What?

I never understood this...there was that guy in Milwaukee several years ago who murdered like twenty-something young men. Jeffrey Dahmer. After everything was said and done, the guy was completely willing to work with physiologists...to be 'studied'. But instead of picking this guy's brain to find out what made him tick, they threw him to the wolves and let him be murdered in prison. That's such a classic US reaction. Just destroy what you're afraid of. Blood on top of blood solves everything.

I really think that US society is deeply afraid of finding the root causes of what sets people like these off. They're afraid because they know there's something wrong on a much deeper level. It's easy to blame a mass murder factory on gun ownership (even though the majority of serial killers don't use guns), easier still (not to mention $PROFITABLE$) to whitewash over the problem with 'increased security measures'.

But nobody has the balls to ask, "What is it about our culture that makes people despise each other to the point of committing mass murder?".

So...what is it?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8D8b51EwrI

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZn-Pq38B_Y

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Some links of interest:

The black market cost of weapons, human trafficking, major drugs, organs, and prostitution throughout the world: http://www.havocscope.com/black-market-prices/ak-47/

Two examples debunking firearms as an effective means of self defense. If only they'd have been armed (zomg!): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ves-expert-shot-death-rural-Georgia-road.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3322025...ting-soccer-mom-found-shot-dead/#.UO7mdW-kKSo

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

From a friend of mine, who requests anonymity, emphasis added:

"The immediate precursor to the firearm was the crossbow and when that was a contemporary weapon, it was banned in many regions because it was easy for a peasant to effectively use with minimal training... whereas knights, infantry and archers had to train for a lifetime to kill effectively. The Church and Kingdoms at the time had a monopoly on force and used it to subjugate the peasantry. Revolts were easily put down by armored warriors and bowmen. The longbow, crossbow and firearm changed the face of warfare and dominance.

Once it became easier to kill ones rulers, and in conjunction with other innovations like the printing press, the old power structures started to dissipate, the Renascence made way for the Scottish Enlightenment, which was the impetus and foundation of the general European Enlightenment, which then led to the rebellion of the American Colonies, French Revolution, Napoleonic Wars and three distinctly separate Industrial revolutions...which caused their own problems and spawned their own wars and resistances...

Now, I am not going to sit here and enshrine The Gun as the end-all-be-all symbol of freedom and enlightenment, because if it symbolizes anything, its violence and the capacity to do violence with great efficiency.

Without that ability, to do great violence with terrifying efficiency, we would have never been able erode the power of Europe's monarchies, unions would not have been able to form as a force against industrialized exploitation and civil rights could have never been fought for by disenfranchised African-Americans.

I'm not going to sit here and say that peace isn't the goal or that violence is a deterrent in all things, but I will say that violence is power and it is exceedingly difficult to progress the ideals of peace and equality if there is not at least some parity of force.

Parity of force doesn't mean that every cousin-fucker gets to carry an AR-15 and shoot up schools, parity of force also means access to education, healthcare and resources. My vision of society, doesn't include firearms as an enshrined symbol of freedom. It includes them as an element of equality. This doesn't mean that everyone is packing heat at all times, it means that the community possess all of the tools to deal with injustice ... whichever form it may take, even though most of those forms will not necessitate the use of a gun.

All this shit breaks down because you have fuckwits that view their gun as a symbol of freedom and other fuckwits viewing it as a symbol of murder. The sad thing is they are both right... just too fucking stupid and stubborn to acknowledge it." - Anonymous

 

[BigApplePi]

From a friend of mine, who requests anonymity, emphasis added:

"The immediate precursor to the firearm was the crossbow and when that was a contemporary weapon, it was banned in many regions because it was easy for a peasant to effectively use with minimal training... whereas knights, infantry and archers had to train for a lifetime to kill effectively. The Church and Kingdoms at the time had a monopoly on force and used it to subjugate the peasantry. Revolts were easily put down by armored warriors and bowmen. The longbow, crossbow and firearm changed the face of warfare and dominance.

Once it became easier to kill ones rulers, and in conjunction with other innovations like the printing press, the old power structures started to dissipate, the Renascence made way for the Scottish Enlightenment, which was the impetus and foundation of the general European Enlightenment, which then led to the rebellion of the American Colonies, French Revolution, Napoleonic Wars and three distinctly separate Industrial revolutions...which caused their own problems and spawned their own wars and resistances...

Now, I am not going to sit here and enshrine The Gun as the end-all-be-all symbol of freedom and enlightenment, because if it symbolizes anything, its violence and the capacity to do violence with great efficiency.

Without that ability, to do great violence with terrifying efficiency, we would have never been able erode the power of Europe's monarchies, unions would not have been able to form as a force against industrialized exploitation and civil rights could have never been fought for by disenfranchised African-Americans.

I'm not going to sit here and say that peace isn't the goal or that violence is a deterrent in all things, but I will say that violence is power and it is exceedingly difficult to progress the ideals of peace and equality if there is not at least some parity of force.

Parity of force doesn't mean that every cousin-fucker gets to carry an AR-15 and shoot up schools, parity of force also means access to education, healthcare and resources. My vision of society, doesn't include firearms as an enshrined symbol of freedom. It includes them as an element of equality. This doesn't mean that everyone is packing heat at all times, it means that the community possess all of the tools to deal with injustice ... whichever form it may take, even though most of those forms will not necessitate the use of a gun.

All this shit breaks down because you have fuckwits that view their gun as a symbol of freedom and other fuckwits viewing it as a symbol of murder. The sad thing is they are both right... just too fucking stupid and stubborn to acknowledge it." - Anonymous

So it would seem civilization went from overwhelming force in the hands of the few to the same in the hands of all. Both have their drawbacks. In the hands of the few means oligarchy which can be bad if the oligarchy is bad. In the hands of all means the irresponsible will harm the innocent. Do we recommend firecrackers to children? (No. They lose their fingers.) Should we recommend NO firearms at all? No. See post by Proxy.

The answer then must be in the middle* where conditions are broad enough the responsible may use them and narrow enough the irresponsible cannot. Note these rules cannot be 100 percent enforceable any more than we can enforce against hurricanes and lightning strikes.
_____________

*I take that back about the middle ... at least the exact middle. If the armament is a nuclear dirty bomb, the destruction is too great. Prohibit that from everyone as much as you would a deadly bacterium.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV7u91A3KGQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRjxEAWwagc

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Many people wish to disarm civilians but the greatest killer is the state. The reason being why they still wish the state to be armed and not civilians is so that tribute can keep flowing. Every now and then they need to kill a few:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHnjT2qqUEw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtd7iLmePeQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G68UmLMO7CY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

 

[joal0503]

Many people wish to disarm civilians but the greatest killer is the state. The reason being why they still wish the state to be armed and not civilians is so that tribute can keep flowing. Every now and then they need to kill a few:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHnjT2qqUEw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtd7iLmePeQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G68UmLMO7CY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

its not the po po. its the military that takes care of this. besides we get the added bonus of being able to build a brand new foreign economy, and have all of the profit come back to a selected group of pockets. hooray